History of Mary Worship

The Catholic Church acknowledges three types of respect paid to important figures in the Church. The first, “latria”, is worship and adoration reserved for God alone. “Dulia” is the veneration allotted for all of the Saints, and the last form, “hyperdulia”, is especially for the Virgin Mary.[1] The idea of formal veneration for anyone except God is a foreign concept for Protestants, but Mary has held an unique place in the Church since the Church Fathers. This place of honor expanded from a theological side note to the throne of Heaven during the era prior to the Reformation. This paper will seek to examine the rise of Mary's importance in Western Church doctrine and practice specifically from the second century until the twelfth.

Monica wrote this article on the origins and history of Mary worship while taking a church history class at seminary. Upon graduation she hopes to continue serving in vocational ministry or working as a teacher.

            Mary began as a topic of inquiry during the second century as the nature of Christ was brought into question. Christ is described in the Bible as both human and divine, and the way this theological truth expresses itself in reality was an issue of much debate.  Importance was placed on the humanity of Jesus, that He really suffered, really died, and really rose again. One indication of Jesus' humanity was that He was born of a woman, the Virgin Mary. Ignatius notes this a few times in his letters, mentioning Mary as an added proof that the Gnostic view of Christ was incomplete, and that Jesus was fully human.[2] For Ignatius, Mary's importance stemmed almost entirely from her role in providing proof for Christ's humanity, but he does make some other assertions about Mary. He argued that Satan did not know ahead of time about Jesus being born of a virgin, thus placing Mary in the middle of a grand divine secret plan.[3] This divine secret that had been withheld from the Devil became of great importance to the Church, and Ignatius asserts that  belief in the virgin birth was a “safeguard of the faith”.[4]

            Tertullian also makes a substantial contribution to the discussion of Mary's importance in relation to Jesus divine and human natures. Arguing against Docetism, Tertullian affirms that Jesus was conceived of the Holy Spirit, but made from the Virgin Mary, “You say that he was born through  a virgin, not of her; that he dwelled in her womb, but was not of her womb...The fact is that the angel, even if he meant to say 'born of her', had to say 'born in her', because that which was born of her was already inside her. The two expressions, then, are equivalent.”[5] This charge against the idea that Mary was simply a door to the human existence gave her significance beyond simply a mechanism that God used to enter humanity.

            Mary holds another significant theological position, not only does she help validate Christ's humanity, she also acts as the second Eve for many Church Fathers. In Romans 5 the Apostle Paul draws the connection between Adam and Christ. As the whole of humanity was brought into sin by the action of one man, so too all believers will be made righteous through the action of Jesus on the cross. This idea carries much weight and theological implication, as does the less scripturally backed parallel of Eve and Mary. In his writings Justin Martyr makes the connection between Eve and Mary[6] as does Ambrose[7], Tertullian[8] and others.

            Irenaeus potentially first states the relationship between Eve and Mary, but he does so without hesitancy, which has led some scholars to interpret the connection to have been widely accepted and agreed upon before his writing in the second century.[9] While the implication of the parallel might have been as innocuous as the fact that Eve through her eating of the fruit made it possible for Adam to sin, and Mary through her bearing of Jesus made it possible for redemption to take place, the elevated status of Mary as “second Eve” opened the door for numerous other doctrines about her to be supposed.[10] By associating Mary with Eve the Church Fathers were placing Mary on a pedestal above any other woman in Biblical history. While other women had been part of miraculous birth stories and the Messianic line, only one woman could match against Eve in redemptive history. It was this elevation of Mary that inevitably led to the veneration of her.

            One piece of evidence used to further the connection of Eve and Mary was the translation of Genesis 3:15 in the Latin Vulgate by Jerome. After the Fall, God pronounced a curse on the serpent, which included the first promise of the Messiah. The English Standard Version of the Bible translates this verse as, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring;
 he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” This is taken to be a promise of Jesus' work on the cross, that Satan would kill the Messiah, but He would rise triumphant after three days, vanquishing death entirely. However, “at some point in the transmission of the Latin text of the Vulgate, whether by mistake or by fraud or by pious reflection, that neuter “ipsum” corresponding to the neuter of “semen [seed]” was changed to a feminine” and the promise that refers to Christ was taken to include Mary as well.[11] The connection between Eve and Mary becomes amplified, and the door was opened for new interpretations on Mary's role in reversing the curse of the Fall upon humanity.

            Another theological assertion that separated Mary from the rest of her gender was her perpetual virginity. While the concept of Christ's virgin birth was explicitly described in the Bible, both in the Gospel accounts of Matthew and Luke and the prophecy of Isaiah, the idea of Mary as 'ever-virgin' was promoted by tradition and apocryphal literature rather than scripture. One example of this is the Book of James which goes into much detail describing Jesus' birth and how Mary remains a virgin after it. One author states, “The [Book of James or Protevangelium] is worthless as history, but it attests the belief.”[12] Even if the plot itself cannot be used as evidence, the fact that it was written about shows that people believed it at the time.

            While the doctrine of Jesus' virgin birth was largely Christ-centered, Mary's perpetual virginity was more of a tangential doctrine centering around Mary herself. Maintaining that Mary was a virgin who conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit was a matter of scriptural inerrancy, holding to her virginity in partu and post partem placed emphasis on the logical outflow of that Biblical doctrine, that the chosen mother of Jesus would remain untouched, and His mother alone. Ambrose uses the Old Testament to affirm this doctrine stating, “Holy Mary is the gate of which it is written: 'The Lord will pass through it, and it will be shut,' after birth, for as a virgin she conceived and gave birth.”[13] Some Church Fathers, like Tertullian, held that Jesus' humanity was proven by the normalcy of Mary as a woman, and her “non-virgin” status after His birth.[14] However, the overwhelming wave of thought upheld that Mary was a virgin before, during, and after Jesus was in her womb, “From the fourth century, almost all great religious teachers agreed with the statements of the Second Council of Constantinople (353 AD) regarding Mary's perpetual virginity.”[15] Jerome, writing in the late fourth and early fifth centuries, put forth the most rational and comprehensive argument for Mary's perpetual virginity in his work against Helvidius. 

            Helvidius in his argument attempted to prove that virginity and matrimony were equally honorable, using Mary as an example. In his refutation Jerome systematically takes each of the arguments made by Helvidius and tears them down using logic and Biblical support. Helvidius asserts that Joseph and Mary had marital relations after Christ was born based on the verse “And he did not know her till she brought forth her son”.[16] Jerome suggests that the word 'till' does not necessitate action afterward. He uses the example, “the Savior says to His apostles: 'Behold, I am with you all days, even unto the consummation of the world.' Will the Lord, therefore, leave His disciples after the consummation of the world”.[17] Helvidius argues that Jesus had brothers and sisters, Jerome points out that they could well have been cousins according to the translation of the term 'brethren'.[18] Helvidius cites the reference to Jesus as “first born” as an implication that others were born of Mary after Him. Jerome asserts that being the “first born” and being an only child are not mutually exclusive.[19] On each point Jerome goes beyond merely defending the doctrine to the point of emotionally and exuberantly proclaiming the truth and necessity of Mary's perpetual virginity at the level of an essential of Christian faith.  “In 649 AD, The Lateran Council defined the second Marian dogma – the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary.”[20] Thus the doctrine promoted so strongly by Jerome nearly 300 years later became the official position of the Church.

            Augustine picks up on the concept of Mary's perpetual virginity and also emphasizes it as a matter of essential beliefs. He argues from Mary's response to the angel Gabriel that she had made a vow of chastity to the Lord, otherwise the concept of bearing a child would not have been as extraordinary to her.[21] He asserts that Mary brought forth Jesus without any detriment to her virginity, Jesus was able to walk through doors, so the idea of His passing through His mother while leaving her untainted was no great matter of faith.[22] He appears almost incredulous in one of his sermons as he states, “a virgin brings forth her child, yet she is always a virgin. Why are you amazed at this, O man?” [23] For the Christian who believes in the resurrection of the dead, belief in Mary's perpetual virginity should be a simple matter of assent.

            Based on her pious acceptance of the Angel's statement that she would bear the Savior of the world, and her assumed perpetual virginity which was esteemed because of the ascetic movement, Mary became the ultimate example of holy living to be imitated by women in the church. Ambrose, Augustine, Tertullian and Jerome among others all point to Mary as the exemplar of purity and holiness. “St. Epiphanius, who died in the year 403, expresses himself thus in his Opuscule De Laudibus Virginis: 'She was superiour to all beings, God alone excepted; more beautiful by nature than the Cherubim, the Seraphim, and all the angelic host....the immaculate sheep who brought forth Christ the Lamb'.” [24] This exalted image of Mary as the ultimate created being sets her up to be imitated and esteemed for her own sake. Just as one might hold supreme levels of respect for an olympic athlete or a celebrity because of their person or achievement, so too Mary began to be viewed as an object worthy of extra attention and imitation. Women were also encouraged to follow after Mary's example, that in seeking to imitate her life they might come closer to imitating the holy life of Jesus himself. While everyone is called to imitate Christ, Christians are also encouraged to imitate other faithful believers. Paul exhorts the Corinthians to imitate him as an example of Christ-like living[25], and the Church put Mary on the same level. The emphasis placed on following her example led to more investigation into Mary's life and attitude which would create even more doctrinal decisions in the future. By making Mary a channel for devotion to Christ, her status was in prime position to be aggrandized further.

            The next major doctrinal step towards Mary worship came in the fifth century with the council at Ephesus where the term theotokos was debated and approved. Two sides arose over the proper term for Mary, centered again around the paradoxical dual natures of Christ, both God and man. This time the humanity of Christ was not questioned, but the divine nature sought to be more thoroughly defined. Nestorius advocated one opinion in the discussion, arguing that Mary should be called the bearer of Christ, christokos, but not the mother of God. This idea was strongly refuted by Cyril of Alexandria. This debate was Christological in nature, and the effect it had on Mary was secondary, but important. In affirming that Mary was the 'bearer of God' officially, the council established the interwoven reality of Christ, but also impressed the nature of the relationship between Mary and Jesus. As one author has argued, “It was this formula theotokos which became the doctrinal foundation for the cult of Mary.”[26] Arguably there had been many steps leading up to Mary's veneration before this term was established, but no doubt this official decision lent credence retrospectively for those looking to bolster their pro-Mary arguments later in the discussion.

            The promotion of “bearer of God” to “mother of God” would drive much Marian doctrine. The term “mater dei” was used before the Council of Ephesus, but infrequently, “Ambrose, writing in the West in the second half of the fourth century, is the first to use the title Mater Dei, and then only twice.”[27] By bearing the Savior, Mary played a necessary role in the work of Salvation. By being Christ's mother she rises to another level of importance, a position of respect and authority. “What can be said with confidence is that 'mother of God' language facilitated, in a manner that theotokos itself did not, the elaboration of nations of the Son's dependence on and subjection to his mother, not only during the early years of his earthly life but throughout it and also beyond it, into his continuing ministry at the Father's right hand, through the Spirit in the Church, and even to the Day of Judgement itself” [28] This discussion had no place at the Council of Ephesus, but by officially endorsing the term theotokos it opened the door for the signifier 'mother of God' to be used more frequently and significance to be applied to it.

            With the distinction of being God's mother in place, it was fitting for Mary to have another honor bestowed upon her by the tradition of the Church Fathers, that of a holy life and eventually an asserted immaculate conception. If Christ did not pass through Mary like a channel, but was made from her, it necessitated for the Fathers that she be sanctified prior to her pregnancy with Him. The question then became when, exactly, Mary was made “full of grace”. Debate ensued from the fourth century to the seventeenth century, ending with the papal decision in 1661 by Alexander VII.[29] The immaculate conception, or at least the idea that Mary was fully sanctified before her birth, became important because not only did it bolster Christ's ultimate divinity and perfection, but it also gave another level of separation between Mary and the rest of her gender. Others are tainted by sin, and say with David “Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me,”[30] but not Mary,  “St. Maximus, bishop of Turin, who says explicitly: 'Mary was a fit dwelling for Christ, not because of the disposition of her body, but on account of original grace.' Then, we have St. Proclus, disciple and successor of St. John of Chrysostom, who affirms that Mary was formed essentially pure.”[31] By putting another barrier of distinction between Mary and the rest of humanity, the stage was set for a higher level of admiration to be given to her. This came to a head during the middle ages as,  “Behind the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was the medieval idea that sexual asceticism and virginal purity was the highest expression of perfection”[32] This notion of Mary being completely pure and removed from sin of any kind fit hand in hand with both Christ's and her own stainless births, and the line between the honor due Christ and that due His mother began to blur.

            Like the Eve and Mary parallel, this discussion was furthered by Jerome's Latin translation of the original text, this time in Luke. The Annunciation narrative depicts the angel Gabriel informing Mary that she would be the mother of the Messiah who would save the world from its sin. When the angel first encounters Mary, he greets her in a way that might be translated “Greetings, you who are highly favored!”[33] Or, as it appears in the Latin Vulgate,“Ave gratia plena”[34] which turns into the familiar “Hail Mary full of grace.” This discussion of how to best translate the word kecharitomene largely influences the discussion of Mary's state of sinfulness or lack thereof. For the Church Fathers arguing for Mary's immunity from sin based on her immaculate conception, the rendering of the text as “full of grace” falls nicely into place with the doctrine they were advocating.

            If Mary had been conceived immaculate, or at least had been fully sanctified shortly after, she was seen to be exempt from the curses of sin; thus the birth of Christ was painless, and she was not overcome by death. Jerome was adamant on the point of Mary's escaping the pain of childbirth. He refuted an apocryphal story which stated that Joseph went to fetch a midwife for the birth in saying, “There was no midwife present; there were no women attendants present to wait on her and to care for her. She herself wrapped the infant in swaddling clothes; she herself was both mother and midwife.”[35] If Mary felt no pain in bearing Jesus because of her sinlessness, it logically followed that she would somehow be immune to the other, ultimate consequence of sin, death.

            The Eastern Church has a longer tradition of the Assumption of Mary, but the West is not silent on the issue. One of the earliest sources of evidence to the widespread belief of Mary's passage from the present life to the life eternal is the apocryphal literature on the subject. Texts such as the Transitus Marie tell stories of how Mary met with the disciples (even those who had already died) and was in some form brought into Heaven to reign alongside Christ. While, like the apocryphal stories that depict Mary's perpetual virginity, these “histories” have no objective factual backing, they do give an indication of popular belief at the time. In reference to Assumption,  “there is no informant whose reliability was at all trustworthy before St. Gregory of Tours (d. 593). Gregory explicitly avowed the Assumption. But on what grounds? So far no evidence has been uncovered of his having anything but the spurious writings as his sole support. Yet his influence was so great that virtually every century thereafter was to have its spokesman for the doctrine.”[36] Thus, while we understand that the apocryphal literature cannot be used to support the historical argument, at the time that may not have been the case. But even the lack of objective evidence did not dissuade the believers of Mary's Assumption, “John of Damascus (died 749) was of the opinion that the doctrine of The Assumption has no basis in Scripture or in history, but that her body was preserved in a state of incorruption, because it was 'becoming' (Greek edei, Latin decuit) that the Mother of God should be so honored by her Son.”[37] Whether or not these ideas about Mary could be legitimately proven seems to be of little consequence. This becomes especially disturbing as the doctrine turns from specific beliefs about Mary's person to her role in Redemption.

            One of the later additions to Marian doctrine, also one of the most controversial aspects, is that of Mary as Mediatrix. This idea was founded on texts from scripture including the Wedding at Cana and the vision of the woman in Revelation.[38] While there are a number of references to Mary in her intercessory role in the East, the doctrine was not widely propagated in the West until the eleventh  century. Peter Damian gives an example of how Mary's role as mediatrix was viewed popularly by that time. In his legends, “Mary is a powerful Mediatrix. In one...she intervenes in the strife of the devils and angels over the soul of a certain Bassus who dies suddenly and unconfessed.”[39] The act of Mary intervening somehow in the hereafter displays an authority beyond that of the Biblical Mary. She is no longer a young woman chosen to bear the Son of God, but now a powerful intermediary acting on behalf of the faithful. The origins of the term “Mediatrix” come from the Eastern Church, “From the East the title was introduced into the literature of the West around the 9^th century through a translation by Paul the Deacon of the Life of Theophilus, in which the term is used. From the 12^th century on, it is applied to Our Lady with ever-increasing frequency.”[40] One example of a twelfth century theologian who promoted the idea of Mary as mediatrix is St. Bernard of Clairvaux. His statement that, “God had willed that we should have nothing that did not pass through the hands of Mary' became a familiar apothegm in the Marian literature of subsequent centuries.”[41] That Mary had some role, and beyond that some authority, in the interactions between God and man heightened her status in the Church and influenced popular devotion to her.

             The title 'co-redemptix' which Mary currently holds within the Catholic Church does not appear until later in the tradition of the Church. Nevertheless the origins can be seen in the idea of Mary as mediatrix, the importance laid upon Mary's own suffering at the cross and ultimately the historic connection between Eve and Mary. Jerome's phrase was powerfully influential, “Death through Eve life through Mary.”[42] However large or small a role Jerome envisioned Mary playing in redemption, it is not difficult to see how his statement about Mary bringing life could be used as evidence in her playing a more active role in Redemptive history.

            These notions of Mary playing a part in redemption beyond her initial role of bearing the Savior exhibit themselves in popular devotion and art. By the eighth century papal authority came powerfully in support of Mary, and thus “Pope John VII (705-7) calls himself “servant of the mother of God” and has himself depicted “in the Greek ceremonial attitude of prostration, the proskynesis, at the feet of the Virgin in majesty.”[43] This act of depicting someone in prostrate form to Mary, especially someone with such clout in the Church, emphasizes the status given to Mary by this time in history. Later on the images would become even more blatant commentary on Mary's position in religious devotion,

            Religious art has much to say on the rise of Mary's importance in the Church. Initially Mary was depicted solely in Biblical scenes and in reference to her physical participation in Christ's birth. As interest in Mary continued to grow, the artistic depictions of her expanded as well. The earliest identified depiction of Mary comes from a Roman catacomb where a woman is shown with her child. The woman is assumed to be Mary, holding Christ with a star behind her alluding to the Nativity. [44] Extending beyond her role in Christ's birth, she is seen interacting with the magi, even without the figure of her Son, “In the later basilica at S. Apollinare Nuovo of the Ostrogotic King Theodoric (474-526) at Ravenna...the Virgin, not the Christ child, extends a welcoming hand to the barbarians who, in gorgeous costume, present her with gifts.”[45] This way of showing the scene gives implied importance to Mary, even above that of Jesus. Her Assumption was also depicted in an artistic fashion, “A sumptuous embroidery of the sixth or seventh century shows Mary moving towards heaven; and as early as 900 a richly adorned ivory plaque was carved in the monastery of St. Gall, now in Switzerland, showing the Virgin rising towards heaven, and inscribed Ascensio Sce Maria –the ascension of the Blessed Mary.”[46] Finally Mary is ultimately crowned Queen of Heaven,  “the coronation of the Virgin, one of western Christendom's favorite themes, first appears in the twelfth century, in the unforgettable apse mosaic of S. Maria in Trasteverre.”[47] Mary is now immaculately conceived, assumed into Heaven, crowned in a position of regal authority and artistically depicted as such in a Church.

            Not only was art being dedicated to the virgin Mary, but places of worship as well. The first example of this that is still existent is the S. Maria Maggiore in Rome dedicated by Sixtus III.[48] This practice was not uncommon, as “Churches were dedicated to Our Lady as early as the 4^th century.” [49] Dedicating a church has no overwhelming theological significance, but practically speaking it sends a very clear message. To worship in a building dedicated to someone other than the Lord Himself might confuse the worship taking place. This is typical of Mary veneration, as it does not seek to take away from worship devoted to God, but perhaps inadvertently misdirects the attention and focus of those taking part in the practice.

            Mary also made her way into the liturgical calendar as feasts were created in her honor. The Western Church began celebrating the “Presentation of Christ in the Temple” also known as “the Purification of the Blessed Virgin” in 542 AD, “The Annunciation” sometime in the seventh century, and “the Nativity” and “Dormitio” in 692 AD.[50] These were adopted from the Eastern Church, “the Church of Rome seems to have celebrated no festival of the Virgin before the seventh century, when it adopted the four Byzantine festivals...”[51] These celebrations became part of the liturgical year, held reverently in high honor, “Pope Nicholas I (858-67) placed the Assumption on a par with Christmas and Easter—tantamount to declaring Mary's translation to heaven as important as the Incarnation and the Resurrection.”[52] The honor ascribed to these festivals reflects the status of Mary within Church thinking and practice. For an event attributed to Mary's life to be viewed with equal respect as major events in the life of Christ and Redemptive history comments on the disproportionate amount of attention paid to Mary during this era.

            These feasts represented not only the rising importance of Mary, but the occasion for more thought and creativity to be expended toward her. Sermons were preached, music was composed and prayers were written. Mary had a place in liturgical worship for hundreds of years before the Reformation,  “In the Roman liturgy Our Lady has had a place in the first prayer of rememberance (communicantes) before the consecration since the 6^th century.”[53] While she played a role, it was not until later that she became the recipient of intercessory requests herself. As her importance grew, however, her role of medatrix was extolled and called upon by faithful adherents. One example of this, 

The Sub tuum praesidium, dated from the late third to the eighth century by different scholars, which contains a plea for the Virgin's help: We seek refuge under the protection of your mercies, oh Mother of God; do not reject our supplication in need but save us from perdition, oh you who alone are blessed. The medieval antiphons – the Alma Redemptoris Mater (eleventh century) and the Salve Regina (also eleventh century) –plead for her help in obtaining God's mercy. [54]

These prayers show that Mary is viewed as a middle man between humanity and God, which is a respect beyond that paid to other pivotal Biblical characters. Her role of partial intercessor was fostered by official doctrine and endorsed by the Church and is finally practiced by all Christians in the West through these liturgical prayers.

             The most famous hymn and prayer to Mary is the Ave Maria, or “Hail Mary”. This prayer, repeated by Catholics all over the world every day is a petition to Mary to help them in their relationship with God. As an act of penance it is required to help deal with their sinful actions. This prayer has its roots in the Middle Ages and even before. While, “combining the scriptural greetings (Lk. 1.28, 42) of the first part to the petition of the second part, attained its current form only in the 15^th century...variants were in use from the 12^th century.”[55] But even before then the text of the Annunciation was part of some worship services. As early as 600 AD a written Hail Mary was being used in liturgical fashion like the Psalms. Potentially it was used in reference to the festivals celebrating Mary.[56] While this early form of the prayer did not associate any power to Mary, it shows how this act of praying to Mary evolved from skeletal use of the Biblical text to a petitionary request. The “Hail Mary” gives a tangible example of how the veneration of Mary grew through this particular part of Church history.

            Mary is an important Biblical figure. She was chosen by God to carry and bear His son, the Messiah. She gives us an example of pious faith in God, asking that the Lord's will would be done in her life. She appears a handful of times in the Gospel narratives and then is left behind as the story continues to exhibit her Son's life, death and resurrection. This Biblical woman became the idealized, idolized image now present in the Catholic Church, but it did not happen overnight. Through council decisions, Patristic writings and artistic depictions she ascended, much like the apocryphal story, from this earth to Heaven itself. In the era of history prior to the Reformation, in both faith and practice Mary—like the Ave Maria—was transformed from a Biblical truth into an iconic symbol. From a humble servant of God to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Enjoyed this article? Try the History of Covenant and Dispensational Theology.

---

[1]          New Catholic Encyclopedia. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967) 365.

[2]          The Apostolic Fathers. Trans. Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M. Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh. (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947)104.

[3]   Ibid. 94

[4]   Henri Daniel-Rops. The Book of Mary. (New York: Hawthorn Books, Inc., 1960) 85.

[5]          Luigi Gambero. Mary and the Fathers of the Church: the Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought. Trans. Thomas Buffer. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 1999) 63.

[6]   Thomas B. Falls. Writings of Saint Justin Martyr. (New York: Christian Heritage Inc., 1948) 305

[7]   Saint Ambrose Letters. Trans. Mary M. Beyenka. Vol. 26. (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1954) 333.

[8]   Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church. 67.

[9]   Jaroslav Pelikan. Mary Through the Centuries. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996) 43.

[10] New Catholic Encyclopedia. 360.

[11] Pelikan, Mary Through the Centuries. 27.

[12] Geoffrey Ashe. The Virgin. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1976) 63.

[13] Saint Ambrose Letters. 227.

[14] Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church. 65.

[15] Courtenay Bartholomew. Her Majesty Mary, Queen of Peace. (Goletta: Queenship Pub. Co., 2002) 52.

[16]         Saint Jerome: Dogmatic and Polemical Works. Trans. John N. Hritzu. Vol. 53. (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1965) 17.

[17] Ibid. 18.

[18] Ibid. 27.

[19] Ibid. 23.

[20] Courtenay Bartholomew. Her Majesty Mary, Queen of Peace. 49.

[21] Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church. 221.

[22]         Saint Augustine Sermons on the Liturgical Seasons. Trans. Mary S. Muldowney. Vol. 38. (New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1959) 29.

[23] Ibid. 10

[24]         Cardinal Lambruschini. A Polemical Treatise on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. (New York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co., 1855) 71.

[25] 1 Corinthians 4:15-17 (New International Version)

[26] Victor Buksbazen. Miriam the Virgin of Nazareth. (Philadelphia: The Spearhead Press, 1963) 187.

[27]         Ioli Kalavrezou. "Images of the Mother: When the Virgin Mary Became Meter Theou." Dumbarton Oaks Papers 44 (1990): 165-72. 167.

[28]         Richard M. Price.  “Marian Piety and the Nestorian Controversy.” In The Church and Mary, edited by R.N. Swanson. (New York: The Boydell Press, 2004) 29.

[29]         Michael O'Carroll. Theotokos: A Theological Encyclopedia of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Wilmington, (Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1983)182.

[30] Psalm 51:5 (New International Version)

[31] Cardinal Lambruschini. A Polemical Treatise on the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. 78.

[32] Victor Buksbazen. Miriam the Virgin of Nazareth. 193.

[33]        Luke 1:28 (English Standard Version)

[34] http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/vul/luk001.htm#001

[35]         Saint Jerome: Dogmatic and Polemical Works. 23.

[36]         Cyrus R. Pangborn. “Christian Theology and the Dogma of the Assumption,” Journal of Bible and Religion 30, no. 2 (1962) 96.

[37] Victor Buksbazen. Miriam the Virgin of Nazareth. 198.

[38] John 2 (New International Version), Revelation 12 (New International Version)

[39]         Sister Mary Vincentine Gripkey. The Blessed Virgin Mary as Mediatrix in the Latin and Old French Legend prior to the Fourteenth Century. (Washington: The Catholic University of America, 1938) 26.

[40] New Catholic Encyclopedia. 359.

[41] New Catholic Encyclopedia. 364.

[42] (Letter XXII, To Eustochium, 21)

[43]         Marina Warner. Alone of All Her Sex: The Myth and the Cult of the Virgin Mary. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1967) 107.

[44]         Ioli Kalavrezou. "Images of the Mother: When the Virgin Mary Became Meter Theou." 165.

[45] Ibid. 105.

[46] Ibid. 89.

[47] Ibid. 113.

[48]         D. F. Wright.  “From 'God-Bearer' to 'Mother of God' in the Later Fathers.” In The Church and Mary, edited by R.N. Swanson. (New York: The Boycdell Press, 2004) 2.

[49] New Catholic Encyclopedia. 365.

[50]         L. Duchesne. Christian worship: its origin and evolution; a study of the Latin liturgy up to the time of Charlemagne. Trans. M. L. McClure. 5th ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1949) 271-272.

[51] L. Duchesne. Christian worship. 270.

[52] Marina Warner. Alone of All Her Sex. 88.

[53] New Catholic Encyclopedia. 365.

[54] Marina Warner. Alone of All Her Sex. 287.

[55] New Catholic Encyclopedia. 366.

[56] L. Duchesne. Christian worship. 540.

Photo by: Susan WD